Quality of life after antegrade intramedullary nail fixation of humeral fractures: a survey in a selected cohort of Brazilian patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The treatment of humeral fractures remains controversial. Systematic reviews demonstrate similar results between dynamic compression plating and locked intramedullary nailing in the surgical treatment of these fractures. However, it appears that antegrade intramedullary nailing causes higher residual pain in the shoulder. The proposal of this work is to evaluate through the WORC protocol (Western Ontario Rotator Cuff Index) the consequences in the quality of life of patients submitted to osteosynthesis of the humerus with antegrade locked intramedullary nailing. METHODS: = 26) classified in the Trauma Sector of the Department of Orthopedics and Traumatology of the Federal University of São Paulo (DOT/UNIFESP) submitted to Humerus Osteosynthesis with Antegrade Locked Intramedullary Nailing. There was also the inclusion of data related to the time since surgery, age, sex, surgical laterality, dominance among members and work leave, which were not considered in the original protocol. After, the data were statistically assessed to evaluate the association between numerical and categorical variables. RESULTS: The overall WORC score was 82.75 ± 17.00 (Mean ± SD) and was not different considering sex, age and postoperative period. Among the WORC domains, both Work and Sport / Recreation Protocols were the most unfavorable factors in the evaluation of patients. Although not statistically significant, those who had the procedure on the dominant side presented a lower quality of life score than those who had the surgery on the non-dominant side. Although non-significant again, those who were away from work had an overall lower quality of life score than those who were not. CONCLUSIONS: The WORC Quality of Life Protocol shows good results for evaluating patients submitted to humerus osteosynthesis with antegrade locked intramedullary nailing. The data stratified by domains were good, however, Work and Sport/Recreation domains showed the lowest means compared to the other domains. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Research Ethics Commitee (CEP 0676/2016) and Plataforma Brasil 56381216.3.0000.550. CAAE: 56381216.3.0000.5505.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".